CHOTALAL PANACHAND BHIMANI Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal directed against the Order-in-Appeal bearing No. S/49-28/84.G.C. dated 28-8-1984 passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, confirming the order-in-original bearing No. 25/83 (D.C) dated 30-11-1983 confiscating 293.100 gms of primary gold found from the residential premises of the appellant with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 20,000/- and imposition of penalty of Rs. 5000/- on the appellant.

(2.) On 22-10-1982, the residential premises of the appellant were searched, where 293.100 gms of primary gold and 1976.000 gms of gold ornaments were found. The appellant is a licensed goldsmith. The authorities found that there were no registers maintained by him and it appears that he has suspended the business since 1979. So far as the gold ornaments of 1976.000 gms were concerned, they were claimed to be the family ornaments, which on verification, was found to be correct and those ornaments were returned. As regards 293.100 gms of primary gold was concerned, no satisfactory explanation was available and hence the same was attached under the reasonable belief that the provisions of the Gold (Control) Act were contravened. The statement of the appellant was recorded on the same day. In that he submitted that the gold was lying with him for the last one month and the same belonged to the customers. His another statement was recorded on 26-10-1982. On 23-11-1982, the appellant wrote a letter to the authorities waiving the show cause notice and pleaded that the gold belonged to his customers, named in the said letter and also submitted their respective affidavits. He admitted that he has not maintained GS-13 registers and that it was merely a technical breach. The appellant was given personal hearing initially on 14-8-83 when he submitted his written arguments. The final hearing in the matter took place on 17-9-83. All the customers named by the appellant were present and they submitted that the primary gold seized from the appellant belonged to them and that they had given their old ornaments for manufacturing of new ornaments. The adjudicating authority however did not believe the defence and passed the impugned order. The Collector (Appeals) also confirmed the same.

(3.) SHRI S.P. Prabhu, the learned JDR, appearing on behalf of the respondent, submitted that the whole theory of the gold belonging the customers is just an after thought as at the time of drawal of panchnama as also in the statements recorded, the appellant has admitted that he is not doing any gold-smithy business. He has not got any account to show that the business is a running business and that he has not given the names of the customers at that time. SHRI Prabhu submitted that the customers have been brought up only at a subsequent stage and even they admitted that they had never seen the appellant doing any gold-smithy work. SHRI Prabhu, therefore, urged that the appellant has come forward with an entirely unconvincing story, that too, at a later stage which has to be negative and submitted that the orders passed by the authorities below calls for no interference.